Agenda packet, regular meeting, first session — San Mateo City Council, September 8, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

The proposed amendments create a new zoning district, MU4 (High Density Mixed-Use), that correlates with the Mixed-Use High designation in the General Plan. The Agenda Report (page 4) indicates height limits for nonresidential buildings in the new zone will be five stories and the height limit for residential buildings will be eight stories:

This is further reflected in the proposed ordinance (Attachment 1, Exhibit A, pages 22-23) at Section 27.53.070:

458 of 554

June 23, 2026

Page 3 ends

However, the redlined version (Attachment 2, page 22) shows a height limit of four stories and 50 feet for nonresidential buildings and six stories and 75 feet for residential or mixed-use buildings, which would be inconsistent with the Agenda Report and the General Plan:

We assume that this is a typo and wanted to bring it to your attention for correction.

Additionally, it is not clear that the distinction between the height limit for the residential and nonresidential uses is consistent with the General Plan. Moreover, the proposed zoning amendments do not appear to reflect the General Plan direction that height limits in the Mixed- Use High designation are 5-8 stories, with commercial buildings within 1/4-mile of Caltrain stations reaching eight stories through community benefits (see Policy LU 2.3 on page 49):

We request clarification of how General Plan policy will be reflected in the Zoning Code.

Floor Height Assumptions

We note that it appears the assumed floor plate heights for nonresidential buildings in the proposed zoning district are 13’ per floor (per the 5 floor / 65’ height limit). This is not reflective of a marketable, high-quality commercial space. A typical marketable office building has an 18’ floor-to-floor height at the ground floor and 15’ floor-to-floor heights on upper levels.

We request that more realistic assumptions are utilized.

459 of 554

460 of 554

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
June 23, 2026
Via Email:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Subject: Key Issues for Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Dear Mayor Loraine and Members of the San Mateo City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.

SLU offers the comments below as an overview of some key issues that we believe need to be addressed in the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU). We appreciate the White Papers as a strong starting point for the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU). Below are our recommendations to help guide the update process.

1. Housing Production Emphasis needed, with a Strong Emphasis on Affordable Housing The Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU) should prioritize housing production over new commercial office development, with particular emphasis on expanding affordable and workforce housing. As noted in the February 23, 2026 Staff Report, the CZCU is intended to modernize the City's Zoning Code and incorporate current best practices. It should also simplify the development of new housing by reducing unnecessary costs and delays while maintaining appropriate environmental review, public safety protections, and input from residents, whenever possible.

Prioritize Affordable Housing
Expanding affordable housing and preventing displacement should be among the highest priorities of the CZCU. Affordable housing has consistently been the most difficult housing type to produce, as reflected in the City's failure to meet affordable housing goals, while market-rate housing targets have generally been achieved. Most recent residential development has focused on market-rate as well as luxury housing, thereby contributing to rising housing costs, gentrification, and the displacement of lower- and moderate-income residents.
1 461 of 554

To increase the supply of affordable housing, the City should provide special additional incentives for 100% affordable housing projects and projects with a higher percentage of affordable units, including the following:
● Making publicly-owned land available at reduced or no cost, ● Actively acquiring existing apartment buildings for preservation or conversion to permanently affordable housing,
● Protecting existing affordable housing from demolition or conversion, ● Reducing or waiving development fees, and
● Providing expedited review and approval processes.

These improvements should result in more affordable housing being approved and built.

2. Comments on “Building Heights” White Paper
Use building height strategically to increase open space.The CZCU should encourage the strategic use of building height to create more meaningful open space at the ground level. In appropriate locations, allowing increases in building height—without increasing overall development density—can reduce a building's footprint and preserve larger areas for parks, landscaping, tree canopy, habitat, and other common open spaces.

The City should consider offering incentives for projects to exceed minimum open space requirements.

Potential incentives could include modest height flexibility, reduced setbacks where appropriate, or other development bonuses in exchange for publicly accessible parks, greenways, trails, urban forests, natural habitat areas, or other high-quality green infrastructure.

3. Comments on “Open Space” White Paper
The policy paper should begin with a clear statement of why people in urban areas need open space.

It is important to note that the benefits of nature and living plants extend well beyond just space for recreation or gathering places for people. Urban parks and green spaces—with living plants and open sky—are vital for public health, mental well-being, and environmental health.

A. Improve Terminology
The term Open Space is currently used too broadly, combining two fundamentally different land use categories. The CZCU should clearly distinguish between areas intended for public recreation and those intended primarily for habitat protection and conservation. The definitions should differentiate:
● Human-centered open spaces: Parks, plazas, urban green spaces, and other areas designed primarily for public recreation and community use. Maybe use “Recreational Open Spaces” ● Natural conservation areas: Habitat lands, limited-access conservation areas, and permanently protected open space, such as Sugarloaf Open Space, that are managed primarily for ecological preservation rather than recreation. Maybe use “Natural Open Spaces” Making this distinction will provide greater clarity, improve land use planning, and help ensure that environmentally sensitive areas are managed and protected according to their conservation purpose. 2 462 of 554

B. Recognize Parks and Natural Open Space as Ecological Infrastructure The CZCU should recognize parks and natural open space not only as places for recreation, but also as essential ecological infrastructure that provides critical environmental services. These areas support biodiversity, improve climate resilience, enhance public health, and preserve natural ecosystems.

The City's policies should distinguish between recreational parks and open space designated primarily for habitat conservation and environmental protection. Open space should not be defined solely as land intended for public access or active recreation. Protected natural areas that are not intended for human use provide significant public benefits, including the following:
● Wildlife habitat and biodiversity conservation,
● Air quality improvement and carbon sequestration,
● Stormwater retention and groundwater recharge,
● Reduced runoff and flooding,
● Noise attenuation,
● Wind protection,
● Privacy screening, and
● Climate resilience and urban heat reduction.

Examples include habitat preserves, vegetated freeway buffers, green corridors, riparian areas, street tree corridors, wildlife movement corridors, and landscaped buffers between buildings and major transportation corridors. Wide vegetated buffers of mature trees and native vegetation can substantially reduce air pollution, mitigate traffic noise, capture stormwater, provide windbreaks, and support wildlife, even where public access is neither practical nor appropriate.

The CZCU should therefore recognize these natural landscapes as critical infrastructure deserving long-term protection and enhancement, rather than evaluating them solely for their recreational value.

To further strengthen the City's green infrastructure network, the CZCU should incorporate the principles outlined in the Sierra Club Sustainable Land Use Committee's Guidelines for a Sustainable Green Street Network, which explains how best to create a connected system of safe, slow, tree-lined streets that prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists while expanding urban canopy, habitat connectivity, and climate resilience.

C. Emphasize the Urban Forest as a critical aspect of the City’s Open Space The CZCU should recognize the urban forest as a fundamental component of the City's open space and green infrastructure network. Livability comes not from empty land, but from trees, vegetation and biodiversity within it. For example, Detroit has abundant vacant land, however, Barcelona, which is much denser, is richer in street trees, greenery and livability.

Existing stands of mature trees and native vegetation are invaluable community assets that contribute significantly to the urban canopy and biodiversity. They should be preserved through stronger tree protection and landscape conservation ordinances that minimize unnecessary removal during development and promote long-term biodiversity. Urban forests provide the following:

3 463 of 554

○ Shade and urban heat reduction,
○ Improved air quality and carbon
sequestration,
○ Stormwater capture and
groundwater recharge,
○ Reduced runoff and flooding,
○ Wildlife habitat and biodiversity,
○ More attractive, walkable
streetscapes, and
○ Improved public health, comfort,
and quality of life.

Barcelona’s tree lined streets increase urban livability and biodiversity D. Increase Parks as Density Grows and Population Increases As the City plans more housing and higher density, it must also simultaneously significantly increase parks and public open space. Creative solutions should also be explored, to improve livability, including: Green Streets, Green Corridors, Pocket green parks, Rooftop and podium green space, Linear parks and trail connections

4. Comments on White Paper “Setbacks and Buffers”
There is much good information in this white paper. We have only a few observations.

A. Setbacks should be designed to create usable green space, tree planting zones, and visual buffers rather than leftover paved strips. With more high density housing required to meet RHNA targets and to meet the housing deficit, including green open space is increasingly important for quality of life in a dense urban context.

See Sierra Club Loma Prieta’s Guidelines for Open Space for High Density Housing for some important suggestions on this topic.

B. The CZCU should seek to provide incentives to encourage more off-street parking and this is noted in the Staff Report of June 9, 2026. The ideas listed in the Staff Report regarding 4 464 of 554

Tandem Parking, Parking in Required Setbacks and Parking Exempt from FAR Calculation are good concepts to consider as well as other ideas that may meet the objective of encouraging off-street parking. In addition, since currently each single family site is allowed to support up to six dwellings (SB-9 plus ADUs) and recent code changes allow some enclosed garages to convert to living space for ADUs, additional parking space is needed.. Encouraging more off-street parking will allow more use of the public right-of-way for future safe bike lanes, improved pedestrian access, etc. See Guidelines for a Sustainable Green Street Network.

C. Balconies or decks should, if possible, not overhang required open space. Open space loses value when covered by another deck or roof, though resulting rain protection has some value.

Alternating left-right balcony placement can reduce shading. Similar standards should apply to commercial office developments.

5. 15-Minute Neighborhood Strategy in White Paper
Consider a citywide planning approach based on the 15-minute neighborhood concept. Areas that are more than a half mile from transit should be evaluated for neighborhood nodes with the following possibilities:
● Mixed-use buildings. Ground-floor commercial, or other uses, with housing above. ● Small-scale retail,
● Cafés and seating
● Secure package lockers e.g. Amazon,
● Mailboxes,
● Shared EV charging,
● Spaces for Car-share,
● Autonomous taxi parking zones, and
● “Missing Middle” housing: allow 3-story buildings, at nodes, in 2-story neighborhoods.

A network of neighborhood centers can reduce vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions, improve access to everyday goods and services, encourage walking and bicycling, strengthen neighborhood identity, and support future transit expansion. The CZCU should provide zoning flexibility and development incentives to encourage the creation of these complete, walkable neighborhoods while respecting the scale and character of adjacent residential areas.

6. Climate Resilience, Sea Level Rise and Associated Ground Water Rise Consider a Sea Level Rise Overlay Zone
Sea level rise adaptation should be integrated into the CZCU and General Plan. Applicable areas could require higher finished floor elevations, flood-resilient site design and consideration of groundwater rise. The Bay edge may be suitable for nature-based adaptation measures offering near-term flood reduction, lower long-term costs and greater resilience benefits.

The overlay zone could include areas directly impacted by SLR as well as related impacts like creeks backing up with higher tides and causing flooding. It could also include a timeline for capital outlays to raise roads and, especially, utilities out of corrosive rising brackish ground water.

The Health and Safety Element of the General Plan may also need modification to recognize the 5 465 of 554

impacts of flooded infrastructure and other health and safety impacts of flooding from rising sea levels and ground water levels.

7. Biological Safety Levels (BSL)
In office, commercial, manufacturing, life science, and similar zoning districts, only Biosafety Level 1 (BSL-1) and Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) laboratories should be permitted. Higher-risk laboratory operations should be prohibited in these areas due to the potential for biological accidents, including the potential for exposure to unknown viruses or other infectious disease agents. For additional public safety protection, zoning standards should also require appropriate setbacks from residential uses, schools, childcare facilities, and other sensitive receptors.

The City of San Carlos has already adopted this approach by limiting life science facilities to BSL-1 and BSL-2 laboratories.

The City of Redwood City takes a further step in its Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) area, which includes high-density mixed-use development. There, BSL-1 and BSL-2 laboratories are allowed only as conditional uses, enabling additional review of health, safety, and nuisance impacts associated with laboratories operating in close proximity to 24-hour residential and commercial uses.

Based on these precedents, we recommend that life science and laboratory zoning be limited to BSL-1 and BSL-2 facilities, consistent with the San Carlos ordinance. In addition, Redwood City’s conditional-use framework should be considered as a model for mixed-use areas to ensure appropriate oversight and safeguards where laboratories are located near sensitive uses.

We recommend that in the zoning for Life Sciences and Laboratories, safety levels be restricted to BSL-1 and BSL-2 as in the San Carlos ordinance . Redwood City’s more detailed 1 conditional use ordinance for BSL-1 and BSL-2 should be considered for Mixed-Use zones. 2 SLU looks forward to further discussions with you on the CZCU.

Respectfully,
Gita Dev, FAIA, Chair, Sustainable Land Use Committee
Chair, Conservation Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: James Eggers, Chapter Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter 2 Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan Section 2.2.4. Use Permit Process 1 See San Carlos Code Chapter 18.07 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Table 18.07.020: Land Use Regulations- Industrial Districts

6 466 of 554

467 of 554

July 20, 2026

City Council, City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94403

RE: Special City Council Meeting Agenda Item 3, Zoning Code Updates

To the honorable San Mateo City Council,

HLC supports the implementation of San Mateo’s zoning code updates in compliance with the City’s housing element policy commitments and the Measure T general plan update, all of which will facilitate housing for the entire community.

As written, the new zoning districts represent substantial clarity and simplicity relative to pre-existing zoning standards. However, to best promote flexibility in new housing that reflects the city’s standards and priorities, Council should direct staff to:
● Increase residential height limits to allow 85-foot tall buildings in R6 and MU3 six-story zones and 110-foot buildings in R7 and MU4 eight-story zones. Currently, the ordinance has 75-foot height limits in six-story districts and 100-foot height limits in eight-story districts. Greater height limits will incentivize elegant ground-floor commercial (typically 18 to 25 feet tall) along with residential (ideally 12 feet of height per floor, including sub floors, ceiling framing, and rooftop utility system). ● Eliminate Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in new and existing zoning districts. Floor Area Ratios are a duplicative zoning regulation that arbitrarily restricts building size. San Mateo already has height limits and setbacks that constrain the building envelope. Floor Area Ratio simply adds another layer of complexity with no additional benefit for the beauty or massing of buildings.

We would also like to better understand: Will there be additional reforms as part of the comprehensive zoning code update process?

San Mateo has ongoing opportunities to streamline existing residential zoning districts like the pre-existing residential districts (see appendix below). Various restrictions on housing—minimum parcel areas and widths, restrictive facade rules, bizarre massing requirements—characterize much of San Mateo’s pre-existing zoning code. These rules prevent land from being used for housing, push up the size of allowable units, and ultimately increase costs. The new zoning updates do not affect existing zoning districts outside narrow changes to

468 of 554

allowable uses, definitions, and retail rules. This is a missed opportunity the City can pursue further.

HLC’s recommendations have precedent elsewhere in the area. San Mateo County eliminated FAR rules and minimum lot sizes in its most recent zoning update. No other cities have such restrictive massing and bulk rules as San Mateo’s downtown, or such aggressive minimum lot sizes throughout the City. By increasing building heights and eliminating FARs in the new districts, and further amending pre-existing zones, San Mateo can best realize the promise of Measure T.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine, Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County

469 of 554

Addendum: Prohibitive Zoning Rules Persist in Pre-Existing Code

While HLC also supports the interim zoning amendments proposed to implement Measure T in the short term, the city can complete its comprehensive zoning update and realize the benefits of the general plan much faster than staff propose. San Mateo should aim to further simplify its zoning update and provide clarity.

San Mateo already underwent a six-year general plan update process in which it heard from a huge range of residents. The outcome of that process, Measure T, passed by an almost 20-point margin. One thing is clear: An overwhelming majority of San Mateo residents want a zoning code that works to facilitate new development reflecting the heights and densities of Measure T.

San Mateo has one of the most unnecessarily complex zoning codes in the Bay Area. I pdf’ed a copy and it runs 472 pages. While the new zoning update simplifies some portion of the old code, much of the original document remains intact.

Consider some examples of the complexity and minutiae of the zoning regulations, particularly in downtown: These rules include minimum lot widths and parcel areas mandating a certain amount of lot area per home, directly increasing the cost of housing by tying it to parcel size…

… as well as rules requiring street-facing sides of buildings to be shorter than half the width of an adjacent street…

470 of 554

… and yet more rules governing the maximum length of the diagonal line from one corner of an apartment building to the other.

I have illustrated just a small subset of San Mateo’s zoning rules. Beyond regulations on the height and density of buildings, San Mateo regulates building setbacks from adjacent lots and the street, maximum dwelling sizes, lot depths, lot frontages, parking requirements, the length of porches, “floor area ratios” (the ratio of floor area in a building to the size of the lot it sits on).

471 of 554

The list of rules goes on and on and on. There are more than six different rules governing building size on top of the very clear base height and density limits. Some of them are redundant (going back to FAR!)

472 of 554

1 From: Steve Carlson >
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 4:03 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: City Council Hearing of July 20, 2026 - Code Amendments Attachments: Letter to Honorable Mayor and City Council Regarding Zoning Code Amendments.docx Attached is a letter addressing my comments to the City Council.

Respectfully,

Steve Carlson

473 of 554

1 High-Density Mixed Use and Multi-family Districts and Zoning Code Clean-ups – Code Amendments
City Council Hearing July 20, 2026

Honorable Mayor and City Council,

The proposed Code Amendments creating four (4) new Zoning Districts should be continued off-calendar allowing the Planning Commission to conduct a Study Session and the City to hold Public Workshops.

The City is in the middle of a Comprehensive Zoning Code Amendment that is not scheduled to produce Draft Amendments until next year. Public Workshops and Study Sessions are projected to be conducted prior to the development and release of the Final Amendments and City adoption.

Adopting four (4) new districts that have not had the benefit of extensive public input is not in keeping with the City’s best efforts to maintain open communication with the community. This is a piecemeal approach, that is presumptive, premature, and riddled with problems – it is putting the cart before the horse and effectively places developers interests above local residents.

At the Commission Hearing of June 23. 2026, the staff provided little to no information, no comparative analysis with other jurisdictions nor with other San Mateo Residential or Commercial Zone Districts. By way of comparison the Planning Commission Study Session on June 9 involving several Zone Districts the staff report included a detailed comprehensive overview of development standards and a detailed comparative analysis with selected other Bay area jurisdictions.

Staff did explain that requirements for the limited standards for residential open space were derived from developer projects and that the requirements were less than other existing City Zone Districts. In the staff report no functional analysis

474 of 554

2 was presented for example of residential balconies with 30 square feet – little more than an outdoor storage space.

No information was presented as to how the uses for the Commercial Mixed Districts were determined. Because a Mixed Commercial Use District is intended to be placed abutting residential neighborhoods the types of uses is important and that residents have input. A few years ago the City tried to allow a 7-11 on North San Mateo Drive/Bellevue Avenue without public input with disastrous consequences for the City.

Staff advised that the Planning Commission could conduct a Study Session at a later date (after the fact) and be provided with much greater information and that changes could be made that would be incorporated in the Final Amendments.

Staff advised that they do not intend to reclassify any exiting lands to the new districts until after the Comprehensive Amendments are adopted. Staff also advised that individual property owners could request a property be reclassified after the Council adopted the new district and that this would be a benefit to developers who would have a better insight into City expectations.

Should the Final Amendments include different requirements, then properties reclassified (and possibly developed) between now and adoption of the Final Amendments would become legally established, but non-conforming prompting adoption of further provisions patching the problem. Owners of such properties having a vested interest in keeping the standards can be expected to lobby against any change that is not beneficial.

This approach unnecessarily places the interests and needs of developers over and above local residents breaking public trust in leadership.

No written explanation was offered as to the urgency of need to adopt the new districts at this time. The City adopted the General Plan two (2) years ago and reviewed several developments in areas that may be reclassified. So why now? Respectfully,

Steve Carlson

475 of 554

Outlook
San Mateo Zoning Update - July 20th City Council Special Meeting - Item 3 FromKevin Choy < >
Date Mon 7/20/2026 3:27 PM
To Sung H. Kwon <[email protected]>; Shelby Donohoe <[email protected]> Cc Joanna Winter <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]> Sung & Shelby,

Per my call with Sung just now, the Harvest team noticed that the deﬁnitions of stories and height for non- residential buildings within the new Mixed-Use High-Density zone is diﬀerent than we would have expected. As written the requirement for stories and height for non-residential construction is 5 stories and 65 feet respectively. We understand that with community beneﬁts the number of stories and height can be increased but our concern is that ﬁve stories is not equivalent to 65 feet in commercial construction. In commercial developments, to solve for the market’s expectation on new class A oﬃce, it is typical to provide an 18’ ground ﬂoor and 15’ upper ﬂoor heights; this results in a structure that is 5 stories being 78’ in total height. Providing less than these heights will automatically remove us from prospective tenants touring lists as heights are a black and white requirement for many groups inclusive of auto tech and robotics.

Our team respectfully asks your team to consider amending the story/height limitation for non-residential construction to 5 stories and 78’ to allow our groups to attract the best tenants in the Bay Area. Thank you for the consideration!

Thanks,

Kevin Choy, P.E. | Director
Harvest Properties, Inc.

235 Montgomery St | Suite 2500 | San Francisco, CA 94104

HarvestProperties.com

8/4/26, 3:24 PM Inbox - Shelby Donohoe - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxNTgwYmUzLTcwNWQtNGU1My05NTlkLWZhNzE2YWJjZDZmNgAQAKBcCMj4T00OmxptRYu6… 1/1

476 of 554

Outlook
Concern Regarding Multifamily Development and Neighborhood Impact FromJerry Davis < >
Date Tue 9/1/2026 6:52 PM
To Shelby Donohoe <[email protected]>
Cc City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Dear Members of the Central Neighborhood Association and City of San Mateo Officials:

I am writing as a longtime San Mateo single-family homeowner to express my serious concern about the direction of development in our city.

San Mateo has consistently approved multifamily housing projects that, in my view, are larger and more intensive than what is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhoods. At the same time, I believe that insufficient consideration has been given to the resulting traffic congestion, parking difficulties, and the impact these developments have on established residential communities.

People who live in single-family neighborhoods have often spent many years working and saving to purchase their homes. For many of us, part of the value of that investment was the expectation of living in a relatively quiet residential environment. I find it deeply troubling to see that character changed through continued development without what I believe is adequate consideration of the people who already live here.

I fully recognize that San Mateo needs housing and that responsible development is an important part of a growing community. However, development should also be balanced against the capacity of existing streets, available parking, traffic conditions, infrastructure, and the character of established neighborhoods.

I am also concerned about whether the burden of accommodating new development is being distributed fairly among San Mateo and neighboring communities. I would appreciate greater transparency regarding how development decisions are made and what consideration is given to alternative locations and the cumulative impact of these projects.

There is an old expression, "follow the money." I am not making an accusation, nor am I suggesting that anyone has acted improperly. I mention it only because major development decisions involve substantial financial interests, and I believe the public is entitled to understand clearly how these decisions are reached, who benefits from them, and how the interests of existing residents are weighed against the interests associated with new development.

I respectfully ask the City and the Central Neighborhood Association to take a closer look at the scale and pace of multifamily development in San Mateo and to consider whether additional development should be approved until the existing traffic, parking, infrastructure, and neighborhood impacts have been adequately addressed.
9/2/26, 8:06 AM Inbox - Shelby Donohoe - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxNTgwYmUzLTcwNWQtNGU1My05NTlkLWZhNzE2YWJjZDZmNgAQAJlBjEMv0BhGofSC5MHa… 1/2

477 of 554

I care deeply about San Mateo and about preserving the qualities that have made it a desirable place to live. My objection is not to change or growth in itself. It is to development that I believe is occurring without sufficient regard for the residents and neighborhoods that are already here.

I hope that my concerns, and those of other homeowners who share them, will be given serious and thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
Jerry Davis
Single-Family Homeowner
Sent from my iPhone
9/2/26, 8:06 AM Inbox - Shelby Donohoe - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxNTgwYmUzLTcwNWQtNGU1My05NTlkLWZhNzE2YWJjZDZmNgAQAJlBjEMv0BhGofSC5MHa… 2/2

478 of 554

1 Alby Calles
From: Shelby Donohoe
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:52 PM
To: Clerk
Cc: Zachary Dahl
Subject: Fw: Other Zoning Revisions - #4 - S. Amphlett
Related to the High-Density Ordinance tonight.

Thanks,

Shelby Donohoe
Senior Planner

From: Laura
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:37 PM
To: Shelby Donohoe <[email protected]>
Subject: Other Zoning Revisions - #4 - S. Amphlett

Dear Ms. Donahoe,

We went through the General Plan review and mentioned the C4 zoning for S. Amphlett from 5th Avenue to Folkstone has been incompatible for our neighborhood for over 40 years.

This zoning update adds the incompatible businesses back into C4 Service Commercial on S.

Amphlett. They may have been added in previously, but it's better to leave them out. These businesses are not the right fit for our neighborhood.

These businesses include:

- Processing and assembly of goods within 6,000 sf.
- Sheet metal shops
- Storage and warehousing
- Tool, die, and pattern making
- Welding and iron work
- Wholesale establishments
- Accessory to principal uses permitted
- Auto repair and body shops
- Other compatible uses determined by the Zoning Administrator.

This will further impact our health and safety with the adverse environmental impacts they bring. We want to move forward not backwards.

479 of 554

2 We would like to see more duplexes - low density housing in this area.

Thank you for your consideration.

Laurie Watanuki
Central Neighborhood

480 of 554

1 Alby Calles
From: David D. Bohannon II
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:05 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Andrew Turco
Subject: Comments on September 8 City Council High-Density Mixed-Use Zoning Code Updates Ordinance Introduction

Dear City Councilmembers,

While we are still digesting the staƯ report package for today’s City Council hearing, there appears to be a signiﬁcant change proposed in the most recent set of zoning amendments related to the applicability of the FAR standards – speciﬁcally, whether FAR should apply to nonresidential portions of a project only (as recommended by the Planning Commission) or apply to residential portions of a project as well. We agree with the Planning Commission that residential development is already separately regulated by height, setbacks and density standards. Applying FAR standards to the residential portions of a project would unduly burden residential and mixed-use projects. The following includes more detail.

In the July 20th version of the zoning amendments, FAR standards were proposed to apply only to the nonresidential portions of a building, as shown below:

Now, in the version proposed for tomorrow’s hearing, there is question about whether to make the FAR applicable to the residential portions of a project as well. As shown in the language below, the FAR standards would apply only to nonresidential portions of a building only in the alternative blue language:

The staƯ report indicates that the Planning Commission’s recommendation was for FAR to apply only to the nonresidential portions of a building and not to the residential portions because residential development is already separately regulated by height, setback and density standards.

481 of 554

2 While we understand that these standards may be reﬁned over time in the comprehensive zoning update, we request that the Planning Commission’s recommendations are implemented in the interim such that FAR should apply only to the nonresidential portions of a project and not to the residential portions.

Thank you,

David Bohannon

482 of 554

1 Alby Calles
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 6:34 PM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: You Voted 5–0 to Protect San Mateo's Historic Districts. The Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Don't Know That. (Agenda Item 18 (File ID 26-11552)

The ask, up front: Shelve the Zoning Code Amendments until staff confirms the new high-density zones don't leave Glazenwood and San Mateo's historic downtown unprotected from what gets built next door. Details and the full request are below.

Mayor and City Council,
This Council voted 5–0, twice, to protect Glazenwood — and strengthened protections citywide, including for the Downtown Historic District On April 20, 2026, this Council voted 5–0 to designate the Glazenwood Historic District. On May 18, 2026, it voted 5–0 again to strengthen the Historic Preservation Ordinance itself.

The Zoning Code Amendments open up construction at the edge of districts like these
This week, the Council is being asked to adopt a zoning ordinance that opens up major new construction directly at the edge of districts like Glazenwood and the Downtown Historic District — without ever checking whether the Historic Preservation Ordinance actually protects them from what gets built next door.

If the intent of the Historic Preservation Ordinance was to preserve historic districts and resources, the Zoning Code Amendments may undermine that intent.

The Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 27.66) only applies to work done on a historic building itself — an alteration, an addition, or a demolition. It does not review or limit what gets built on the property next door. The ordinance protects the historic building. It does not protect what surrounds it.

Its stated purpose, in Section 27.66.010, calls for "complementary design and construction" near historic resources.

The Zoning Code Amendments do not break any rule in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. But they would allow an 8-story building with no compatibility review directly against the edge of Glazenwood or the Downtown Historic District — the opposite of what that purpose calls for.

483 of 554

2 The result: 8-story buildings, no setback, no Council review, at a historic border The new high-density districts (R6, R7, MU3, MU4) require a buffer between a new building and the property next door. But that buffer only applies when the property next door is zoned R1 or R2.

A historic district like Glazenwood or the Downtown Historic District gets no buffer at all. The rule was never written to notice it. Under this ordinance, an eight-story, 100-foot building with no required side setback could go up right against a historic district boundary. The code would treat it exactly the same as if nothing historic were there.

Picture it concretely: a century-old home on the edge of Glazenwood, or a historic storefront on the edge of the Downtown Historic District, and right next to it — built to the property line, with no gap at
all — a wall of new construction eight stories tall. Nothing in either ordinance stops that. Nothing requires it to even try to fit.

The same gap also shrinks Council oversight, since Council review is triggered by exceeding the General Plan height limit, and this ordinance sets that limit as high as 100 feet in these districts — letting a building up to 99 feet go up next to a historic district without ever reaching the Council.

None of the 7 public comments on file caught this gap
Seven public comments have already been submitted on this item. Developers asked for taller buildings. A housing group asked to eliminate the floor-area-ratio rule. Other residents raised concerns about traffic and about moving too fast.

Not one comment checked whether the Historic Preservation Ordinance this Council just strengthened actually reaches the new development this ordinance would allow. It does not.

That's the exact seam where the City's two most recent land use actions — one protecting historic districts, one creating high-density capacity next to them — were never checked against each other.

The fix: Shelve the Zoning Code Amendments until this is evaluated Shelve the Zoning Code Amendments (Agenda Item 18, File ID 26-11552) until staff has evaluated how it interacts with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and reports back to the Council on that interaction specifically. That evaluation should cover:
 Extending the buffer and setback rules that already apply next to R1/R2 zones to also apply next to a historic district or designated historic resource.  Keeping Council review for large projects built next to a historic district or historic resource, even when the project doesn't exceed the General Plan height limit.  Mapping which parcels near San Mateo's historic districts, including Glazenwood and the Downtown Historic District, could realistically be reclassified under these new zones, so the Council can see the real risk before voting, not after.

484 of 554

3 This Council settled the importance of Glazenwood twice this year, unanimously, and strengthened the ordinance that protects the Downtown Historic District too. I'm asking it not to undo that by accident tonight.

Respectfully,
Doug D'Anna

485 of 554

High-Density Mixed-Use
and Multi-Family Districts,
and Zoning Code Updates,
Ordinance Introduction
September 8, 2026
Shelby Donohoe, Senior Planner
Community Development
1 486 of 554

Presentation Overview
Background
Zone District Updates
• R6 High Density Multiple Family Residential
• R7 High Density Multiple Family Residential
• MU3 Medium Density Mixed-Use
• MU4 High Density Mixed-Use
Additional Code Updates
FAR Discussion
Recommendation
2 487 of 554

General Plan and
Zoning Code Update
General Plan 2040
- Strategic document adopted 2024
- High-level policy direction
- Overall development intensity and land
use patterns
Zoning Code (SMMC Title 27)
- Enforceable development standards
- Currently undergoing a comprehensive
update to better align with General
Plan goals and policies
- Anticipated completion mid 2027
3 488 of 554

Proposed Districts
State Law
Local ADU Ordinance
• California State Legislature establishes state-wide ADU laws • HCD has authority to enforce State ADU Laws & review local ordinances for compliance
• San Mateo adopted an updated local ADU Ordinance in 2022 • Builds upon State Law to regulate ADU development in the City • Currently being updated to reflect changes to State Law and local needs
Proposed Zone District General Plan Designation
R6 High Density Multiple Family Residential Residential Medium II R7 High Density Multiple Family Residential Residential High MU3 Medium Density Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Medium II
MU4 High Density Mixed-Use Mixed-Use High
4 489 of 554

Development Standard R6 Proposed Requirement
Maximum Density 99 dwelling units per acre
Floor Area Ratio 3.5
Maximum Height 6 Stories / 75 ft
Front Yard Setback None Required
Side Yard Setback None Required
Rear Yard Setback 5 ft
Buffers Adjacent to R1 or R2 Districts Side: 10 ft
Rear: 15 ft
R6 DISTRICT

HIGH DENSITY

MULTIPLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL
Accommodates higher-density multi-family housing
in appropriate locations, particularly along major
corridors and near mixed-use, employment and
commercial areas.
5 490 of 554

R7 DISTRICT

HIGH DENSITY
MULTIPLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL
Accommodates the City’s highest-density
residential development in locations with the
greatest access to transit, services, employment
centers, and commercial uses.

Development Standard R7 Proposed Requirement
Maximum Density 130 dwelling units per acre
Floor Area Ratio 4.0
Maximum Height 8 Stories / 100 ft
Front Yard Setback None Required
Side Yard Setback None Required
Rear Yard Setback 5 ft
Buffers Adjacent to R1 or R2
Districts
Side: 10 ft
Rear: 15 ft
6 491 of 554

MU3 MEDIUM DENSITY

MIXED-USE
Accommodates a wide range of commercial,
office, and civic uses along with multi-family
residential units in order to promote diverse
walkable development.

Development Standard MU3 Proposed Requirement
Maximum Density (Residential) 99 dwelling units per acre Minimum Density (Mixed-Use with
Residential)
50 units per acre when within ½-mile of a Caltrain Station 30 units per acre when beyond ½-mile of a Caltrain Station Per Section 27.02.230.

Floor Area Ratio 4.0
Maximum Height Nonresidential: 4 Stories (50 ft)
Mixed-Use with Residential: 6 Stories (75 ft)
Front Yard Setback None Required
Side Yard Setback None Required
Rear Yard Setback 5 ft
Buffers Adjacent to R1 or R2 Districts Side: 10 ft
Rear: 15 ft
7 492 of 554

MU4 HIGH DENSITY

MIXED-USE
Accommodates the same range of commercial, office,
institutional, and residential uses allowed in the MU3
District, but at increased intensity to support a more
concentrated mix of uses.

Development Standard MU4 Proposed Requirement
Maximum Density (Residential) 130 dwelling units per acre Minimum Density (Mixed-Use with
Residential) 50 units per acre per Section 27.02.230.

Floor Area Ratio 4.5
Maximum Height Nonresidential: 5 Stories (65 ft)
Mixed-Use with Residential: 8 Stories (100 ft)
Front Yard Setback None Required
Side Yard Setback None Required
Rear Yard Setback 5 ft
Buffers Adjacent to R1 or R2 Districts Side: 10 ft
Rear: 15 ft
8 493 of 554

Height Standards Methodology
District Height Limit
R6 Six Stories / 75 feet
R7 Eight Stories / 100 feet
MU3 Nonresidential: Four Stories / 50 Feet
Mixed-Use with Residential: Six Stories / 75 Feet
MU4 Nonresidential: Five Stories / 65 Feet
Mixed-Use with residential: Eight Stories / 100 Feet
• Methodology for translating stories to a height limit • First Story – 14 ft (floor to floor)
• Upper Stories 12 ft (floor to floor)
• Function as interim height limits
• Final height limits to established as part of Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
9 494 of 554

General Plan Policy LU 2.3 informed proposed two-
tier height limits in Mixed-Use Districts
• Aligns with goal to incentivize housing in mixed-use
development
• Supports a future community benefits framework
Height Standards within
Mixed-Use Districts
10 495 of 554

State Law
Additional Discussion:

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximums for Residential Uses
Staff requests direction from City Council on applicability of FAR maximums as applied to residential uses.

Floor Area Ratio R6
The maximum floor area ratio of buildings and structures on a zoning plot shall be 3.5. [Alternative Proposal: remove this section and renumber chapter.] Floor Area Ratio R7
The maximum floor area ratio of buildings and structures on a zoning plot shall be 4.0. [Alternative Proposal: remove this section and renumber chapter.] Floor Area Ratio MU3
The maximum floor area ratio of buildings and structures on a zoning plot shall be 4.0. [Alternative Proposal: add following text "Floor area ratio shall only apply to nonresidential portions of a building".] Floor Area Ratio MU4
The maximum floor area ratio of buildings and structures on a zoning plot shall be 4.5. [Alternative Proposal: add following text "Floor area ratio shall only apply to nonresidential portions of a building".] 11 496 of 554

Projects within the Proposed Districts would be required to provide open space as follows:
• 50 square feet of private open space per unit; or
• 75 square feet of common open space per unit; or
• A combination of private and common usable open
space:
• Min. 30 square feet of private usable open space per
unit. The remaining open space obligation can be met
through common usable open space equal to 150 percent
remaining private open space requirement.

Open Space Standards
within Proposed Districts
12 497 of 554

Additional Code Amendments
Landscape Code Revision – Exempting 100%
affordable housing developments from landscape
code requirements.

SPAR Requirement – Removing language related
to City Council review requirement for buildings above
55 feet in height.
13 498 of 554

Additional Code Amendments
Commercial Zone Districts – Clarifying that residential uses within commercial districts shall take place above the ground floor.

Residential References within Non-Residential
Districts – Correcting cross references within the code to residential development standards.
14 499 of 554

Additional Code Amendments
Permitted Uses within C4 Zone District, CBD
Zone District and E2 Zone District – Reinstating uses
within these districts that were previously
unintentionally removed.

Temporary Construction Uses –Adding temporary
buildings for construction purposes as a permitted use
to amended districts.
15 500 of 554

Additional Code Amendments
Retail FAR standards - Removing double FAR calculation
for ground floor commercial spaces over 18' in height.

In-Person Sale Requirements - Removing requirement
that businesses within the required retail frontage zone do over 50% of sales in-person.
16 501 of 554

State Law
Local ADU Ordinance
• California State Legislature establishes state-wide ADU laws • HCD has authority to enforce State ADU Laws & review local ordinances for compliance
Public Hearing on June 23, 2026 - Commission recommended that City Council adopt the proposed ordinance, with an FAR requirement that excluded residential uses.

A Study Session was requested on the proposed districts to further discuss the high density requirements.
• Planned for later this year, ahead of publication of the draft of the Comprehensive Zoning Code.

Planning Commission
17 502 of 554

State Law
Local ADU Ordinance
• California State Legislature establishes state-wide ADU laws • HCD has authority to enforce State ADU Laws & review local ordinances for compliance
• San Mateo adopted an updated local ADU Ordinance in 2022 • Builds upon State Law to regulate ADU development in the City • Currently being updated to reflect changes to State Law and local needs
The proposed Ordinance is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA
18 503 of 554

State Law
Local ADU Ordinance
• California State Legislature establishes state-wide ADU laws • HCD has authority to enforce State ADU Laws & review local ordinances for compliance
• San Mateo adopted an updated local ADU Ordinance in 2022 • Builds upon State Law to regulate ADU development in the City • Currently being updated to reflect changes to State Law and local needs
Introduce an Ordinance to make various amendments to Title 27 “Zoning” of the San Mateo Municipal Code to establish four new high density zoning districts consistent with General Plan 2040 and make minor revisions to various sections to update outdated language and correct inconsistencies.
• Should any updates be made to the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) requirements?
Recommendation
19 504 of 554

Backup Slides
20 505 of 554

21 (a) Permitted uses in the C1, C2, and C3 districts, except that residential uses, low barrier navigation centers, office uses on the properties along Palm Avenue between Twentieth and Twenty-fifth Avenues, and emergency shelters are prohibited;
(b) Air conditioning and heating sales and service;
(c) Animal hospitals, which may include outdoor kennels; (d) Automotive parts, service, and repair classified as major motor vehicle repair in Section 27.04.320; (e) Construction materials sales and lumberyards;
(f) Dry cleaning establishments, without customer service areas; (g) Linen, towel, diaper and other similar supply services; (h) Machinery sales, rental, and service, when conducted within an enclosed building; (i) Parcel delivery and receiving stations;
(j) Processing and assembly of goods determined by the Zoning Administrator to be compatible with adjacent uses, provided that space in a building does not exceed six thousand square feet of total floor area and basement space, not including stairwells or elevator shafts; and provided that such processing or assembly can be conducted without noise, vibration, order, dust or any other condition which might be disturbing to occupants of adjacent buildings.

When manufacturing operations of the same or similar products demand space exceeding six thousand square feet, they shall be located in the M1 district.
(k) Sheet metal shops;
(l) Storage and warehousing;
(m) Tool, die and pattern making;
(n) Welding and iron work;
(o) Wholesale establishments;
(p) Accessory to principal uses permitted;
(q) Other compatible uses as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

506 of 554

City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

Item 20: Conference with Labor Negotiators
(Government Code Section 54957.6)

PUBLIC COMMENT

507 of 554

1 Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 10:51 AM
Subject: FW: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 8:16 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staﬀ
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

I am so grateful to our library staﬀ and the programs they run, including:
* Special collecƟons including business, biotechnology, California history, non-proﬁt research and genealogy * Extensive internaƟonal language collecƟons in Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, and Spanish * Science lectures presented by renowned researchers
* Financial educaƟon workshops with well- regarded community partners * Expanded Project Read services, including oﬀ site workshops and tutoring * Seed library
* AŌer hours programming such as the popular Trivia Nights and CraŌing events * Homebound delivery service
* Sewing and needle craŌ workshops
* 3D prinƟng
Truly, no other library in the region oﬀers the same breadth and depth of services.

I ask you to make library staﬀ compensaƟon reﬂect the quality of services they provide by bringing them up to market median compensaƟon and giving them a cost-of-living adjustment that keeps up with inﬂaƟon in this diﬃcult Ɵme.

Thank you,
Dan Shaﬀer
San Mateo

508 of 554

1 Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 10:50 AM
Subject: FW: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 6:56 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staﬀ
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am a San Mateo resident and a rabbi acƟve in jusƟce work and interfaith work. I have been so proud to live in a city with such a wonderful library and library staﬀ, and I'm deeply dismayed to learn that the staﬀ who run this library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Rebecca Hecht
San Mateo

509 of 554

1 Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 10:50 AM
Subject: FW: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 2:42 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staﬀ
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Bill Graham
San Mateo

510 of 554

1 Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 10:50 AM
Subject: FW: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 1:56 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staﬀ
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Susan Graham
San Mateo

511 of 554

1 Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 12:37 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

I grew up using the San Mateo library with all their amazing resources. My imaginaƟon would not have been unlocked as a kid as much as it was in the library. The kindness from all the staﬀ makes it such a special place.

512 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 10:38 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Kristen Murray
San Mateo

513 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 10:49 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
MaƩ Harray
San Mateo

514 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:08 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Heather Hartman
San Mateo

515 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:10 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Manisha Haridasan
San Mateo

516 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:18 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

I am so grateful to our library staﬀ and the programs they run, including:
* Dedicated children’s programs and events like art, science, nature. My daughter has beneﬁted so much from these events and I know it is a result of the children’s librarians! * Special collecƟons including business, biotechnology, California history, non-proﬁt research and genealogy * Extensive internaƟonal language collecƟons in Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, and Spanish * Science lectures presented by renowned researchers
* Financial educaƟon workshops with well- regarded community partners * Expanded Project Read services, including oﬀ site workshops and tutoring * Seed library
* AŌer hours programming such as the popular Trivia Nights and CraŌing events * Homebound delivery service
* Sewing and needle craŌ workshops
* 3D prinƟng
Truly, no other library in the region oﬀers the same breadth and depth of services.

Thank you,
stephanie lo
San Mateo

517 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:19 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Marissel Llavore
San Mateo

518 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:24 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Alanna Weaver
San Mateo

519 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:25 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the Library Assistants who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

I am so grateful to our Library Assistants and the programs they run, including:
* Special collecƟons including business, biotechnology, California history, non-proﬁt research and genealogy * Extensive internaƟonal language collecƟons in Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, and Spanish * Science lectures presented by renowned researchers
* Financial educaƟon workshops with well- regarded community partners * Expanded Project Read services, including oﬀ site workshops and tutoring * Seed library
* AŌer hours programming such as the popular Trivia Nights and CraŌing events * Homebound delivery service
* Sewing and needle craŌ workshops
* 3D prinƟng
Truly, no other library in the region oﬀers the same breadth and depth of services.

I ask you to make Library Assistant compensaƟon reﬂect the quality of services they provide by bringing them up to market median compensaƟon and giving them a cost-of-living adjustment that keeps up with inﬂaƟon in this diﬃcult Ɵme.

Librarians are paid enough, but lower-ranking library staﬀ cannot aﬀord to live in San Mateo on a full-Ɵme salary, at an income level which the county and California state deﬁne as "Low Income".

Thank you,
Sam Trinkaus
San Mateo

520 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:30 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Ashley Robles
San Mateo

521 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:41 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Jirawat Hengsawad
San Mateo

522 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:44 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am sad to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

This library is my favorite library of all and has been in my life for a long Ɵme. I’ve made friends here, studied for exams here, and many more.

Thank you,
Rachel Zuniga
San Mateo

523 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:49 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Jennifer Schmidt
San Mateo

524 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:49 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

I am so grateful to our library staﬀ and the programs they run, including:
* DVD - CD CollecƟon
* Special collecƟons including business, biotechnology, California history, non-proﬁt research and genealogy * Extensive internaƟonal language collecƟons in Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, and Spanish * Science lectures presented by renowned researchers
* Financial educaƟon workshops with well- regarded community partners * Expanded Project Read services, including oﬀ site workshops and tutoring * Seed library
* AŌer hours programming such as the popular Trivia Nights and CraŌing events * Homebound delivery service
* Sewing and needle craŌ workshops
* 3D prinƟng
Truly, no other library in the region oﬀers the same breadth and depth of services.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION
Thank you,
Danny Tahiraj
San Mateo

525 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:57 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

Library staﬀ are public servant, like me. I teach a a local high school and we’ve seen grades and test scores plummet since the addiƟon of screens in schools. We need books and people who can help guide young people to them. Now more than ever.

Please pay these people a fair wage. They deserve it. I know it. You know it. Stop stalling and get them up to par with those strong then. Or beƩer yet, set a higher pay standard here that others car rise to.

Let’s do this,
Lawrence Long
Thank you,
Lawrence Long
San Mateo

526 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:59 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
karen umana
San Mateo

527 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 1:01 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

I was never a library guy. UnƟl I started visiƟng our San Mateo library. Now I’m a regular ! I am so grateful to our library staﬀ and the programs they run, including:
* Special collecƟons including business, biotechnology, California history, non-proﬁt research and genealogy * Extensive internaƟonal language collecƟons in Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, and Spanish * Science lectures presented by renowned researchers
* Financial educaƟon workshops with well- regarded community partners * Expanded Project Read services, including oﬀ site workshops and tutoring * Seed library
* AŌer hours programming such as the popular Trivia Nights and CraŌing events * Homebound delivery service
* Sewing and needle craŌ workshops
* 3D prinƟng
Truly, no other library in the region oﬀers the same breadth and depth of services.

Thank you,
Ram Ramayanam
San Mateo

528 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 1:22 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Heather Olmedo
San Mateo

529 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 1:25 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

The San Mateo libraries have something for everyone! I even borrowed a cooktop when my stove was not working. This only happens because of the amazing staﬀ at our library, they deserve a living wage.

Thank you,
Susan Raye
San Mateo

530 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 1:28 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Biswajit Panda
San Mateo

531 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 2:09 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Yuma Ohkura
San Mateo

532 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Susan Hilded
San Mateo

533 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 3:00 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Barry Hilded
San Mateo

534 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 3:17 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am shocked and troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area. How is this even possible?! I am so grateful to our library staﬀ and the programs they run, including:
* Special collecƟons including business, biotechnology, California history, non-proﬁt research and genealogy * Extensive internaƟonal language collecƟons in Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, and Spanish * Science lectures presented by renowned researchers
* Financial educaƟon workshops with well- regarded community partners * Expanded Project Read services, including oﬀ site workshops and tutoring * Seed library
* AŌer hours programming such as the popular Trivia Nights and CraŌing events * Homebound delivery service
* Sewing and needle craŌ workshops
* 3D prinƟng
Truly, no other library in the region oﬀers the same breadth and depth of services.

If you are truly commiƩed to elevaƟng the brand of the City of Sam Mateo to bing “THE Place to Be”, iI ask you to match your words with AcƟon - make library staﬀ compensaƟon reﬂect the quality of services they provide by bringing them up to market median compensaƟon and giving them a cost-of-living adjustment that keeps up with inﬂaƟon in this diﬃcult Ɵme. Let Sam Mateo stand for equity in ALL corridors!
Thank you,
Deborah Soon
San Mateo

535 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 5:12 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Dana Lovell
San Mateo

536 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 6:52 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area. Because I am the child of a Librarian, a close friend of the late State Librarian Kevin Starr, and a devoted user of our San Mateo Library since 1972, whose daughters both worked at the Main Library as High School students I ﬁnd myself at a loss to understand why this condiƟon exists in my City.

Thank you,
Susan Burns
San Mateo

537 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 6:53 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Susan Burns
San Mateo

538 of 554

1 Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 7:23 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Susie Choe
San Mateo

539 of 554

1 Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2026 7:32 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Leane Eberhart
San Mateo

540 of 554

1 Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2026 8:14 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Trish Power
San Mateo

541 of 554

1 Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 12:14 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

I am so grateful to our library staﬀ and the programs they run, including:
- excellent reference services, technology help, and technology lending. * Special collecƟons including business, biotechnology, California history, non-proﬁt research and genealogy * Extensive internaƟonal language collecƟons in Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, and Spanish * Science lectures presented by renowned researchers
* Financial educaƟon workshops with well- regarded community partners * Expanded Project Read services, including oﬀ site workshops and tutoring * Seed library
* AŌer hours programming such as the popular Trivia Nights and CraŌing events * Homebound delivery service
* Sewing and needle craŌ workshops
* 3D prinƟng
Truly, no other library in the region oﬀers the same breadth and depth of services.

Thank you,
Liz Perry
San Mateo

542 of 554

1 Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 12:20 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Paup Perry
San Mateo

543 of 554

1 Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 2:12 PM
Subject: FW: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 10:36 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staﬀ
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Heather Javaheri
San Mateo

544 of 554

1 Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 2:09 PM
Subject: FW: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 12:20 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staﬀ
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Elvis Cufurovic
San Mateo

545 of 554

1 Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 2:09 PM
Subject: FW: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 12:44 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staﬀ
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Juan Barajas Rivera
San Mateo

546 of 554

1 Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 5:06 PM
Subject: FW: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staff
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 3:49 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair Pay for San Mateo Library Staﬀ
Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart,
I am a patron of the San Mateo Public Library.

I am wriƟng to you because I am troubled to learn that the staﬀ who run this wonderful library are paid lower than any other comparable city in the Bay Area.

I am so grateful to our library staﬀ and the programs they run, including:
* Special collecƟons including business, biotechnology, California history, non-proﬁt research and genealogy * Extensive internaƟonal language collecƟons in Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, and Spanish * Science lectures presented by renowned researchers
* Financial educaƟon workshops with well- regarded community partners * Expanded Project Read services, including oﬀ site workshops and tutoring * Seed library
* AŌer hours programming such as the popular Trivia Nights and CraŌing events * Homebound delivery service
* Sewing and needle craŌ workshops
* 3D prinƟng
* Fee free interlibrary loans
Truly, no other library in the region oﬀers the same breadth and depth of services.

Thank you,
Gary Kong
San Mateo

547 of 554

548 of 554

549 of 554

550 of 554

551 of 554

552 of 554

553 of 554

554 of 554

San Mateo City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

San Mateo City Council
September 8, 2026